[deleted]

It is my understanding that, during the time when liberation theology was developed, it was a very radical deviation from mainstream Roman Catholic doctrine. It had close ties with Marxism and socialism, some of it's adherents advocated overthrowing their governments, and it subverted traditional norms in the Church.

Is this true? If so, how did the Catholic Church respond to a radical movement sympathetic to communism?

I apologize if this has been asked before, I'm not really sure what to search for.

In movies and TV, kings or queens can be seen listening to the grievances of their subjects, one at a time, lined up, all day long. Did this actually happen in history? Were there specific days or times when common people could come to be heard by their leaders?

Again, I apologize if this question has been asked before or if there's anything wrong with how I've phrased my question. I know this is a heavily moderated subreddit, and with good reason, so if this post goes against any rule, please remove it.

Who went to jail, if anyone? Was there any new laws introduced because of this? How did they get found out?

[deleted]

It seems like the first waves mainly consisted of upper class, well-educated Cubans. What about the lower classes? Does it have to do with affordability?

[deleted]

I don't want to read the results Google is showing up. This subreddit seems like a more reliable source, but for the same reason it also is likely to be a a place for misinformation (sorry but the Internet has made me a bg time cynic, both information and misinformation are readily available and look credible at first) so please consider that in your answer. But anyway, better to believe Reddit than other places.

I understand that tension between the Southern and Northern States has been rising for decades, with the issues of slavery, tariffs and so on dividing the nation. My question is-is it possible to say(more or less) when was the tipping point after which tension began to rise exponentially, which act or Supreme Court ruling enraged people enough that peaceful solution was no longer possible?

In fitting with the week's theme, I thought I'd try and get some information on Soviet collectivization. At school, I was taught that mass famine occurred all throughout the USSR, millions starved to death, etc.

I struggle to believe this - is there any actual evidence that collectivization was such a destructive policy? If there were substantial deaths, were they really in the millions?

What was Russian agriculture like prior to the October Revolution? Was collectivization an overall boon for Soviet agricultural output? How common were famines in the post-collectivization USSR?

Thank you in advance.

I'm not asking the sub to confirm my biases -- I'm asking it to potentially blow them up (or at least critically challenge them).

I'm an American, and I went to school here. Like (I think) everyone else that goes to school in the States, I learned that the American Revolution was the result of oppressive and pig-headed policies imposed by a tyrannical government, and the conflict was one between freedom and fundamental rights against sneering, flippant oppression. The good guys won, and they did so through a combination of pluck and dash and cunning. (That's not entirely propaganda, I don't think; there's a ton of ground to cover in grade school and high school history, and kids don't really understand nuance all that well, so best to give a friendly, simplified narrative and move on.)

But I've since done some independent reading on the subject and that seems, well, incomplete at best. From what I can surmise we were actually kind of jerks. A summary of my understanding follows:

• We were terrible profit centers as colonists -- we stubbornly smuggled our way around any tariffs (and everyone agreed tariffs were legal, representation or no), and there was really nothing parliament could figure out to stop it. Being profitable is what colonies are for, so that caused some predicable resentment.

• We were in fact very expensive. After the French and Indian war, parliament (sensibly) wanted us to pay some proportion of the expense associated with the conflict (which was really for our benefit and was hugely expensive). So they impose some taxes.

• Also we were obstinate. In response to the taxes Britain imposed, we played the "No Taxation Without Representation" card, which was probably somewhere between a genuine legal argument and a cynical attempt to avoid paying taxes. (From what I gather, the British at the time didn't tie representation to geography, which means that, arguably, we were represented by parliament even though no members of parliament were colonials.)

• The Brits started to get fed up, and dug in their heels. "Look, kids. You just had a really expensive war that we helped you win. You obviously don't like the clearly legal tariffs we tried to use as means of raising revenue, because you smuggle your way around all those. Now you've come up with a reason not to pay taxes, either. Piss off, pay us. And no, we're not giving you representation in parliament. Pay your taxes." Now they were kind of being pig-headed jerks, but there's a reasonable case to be made that we started it.

• This subsequently led to protests from the Americans that bordered on tantrums (the Boston Tea Party was pretty embarrassing) and some really truly tyrannical responses from the Brits (sending Hessian mercenaries to put down the rebellion and occupying Boston), but everyone was so heated up at this point that everyone had kind of lost their heads.

• War ensues.

Is this reasonably accurate? (Or are we truly heroes for freedom? I mean that's an acceptable answer, too.)

I have been listening to podcast lecture on Alexander the Great and Macedonian battle tactics. The lecturer explained the Macedonian "anvil and hammer" principal, which was a departure from earlier Greek warfare. The way I understand it, Philip and later Alexander would typically place their shock cavalry on the right side of the line, and attempt to break the enemy's left so that they could flank the enemy and pin the enemy's army between the cavalry and the rest of the Macedonian cavalry.

The right/left placement piqued my curiosity. I believe that the lecturer said that the cavalry would come from the right (enemy's left) because it was harder for the enemy to defend. Is that because we are dealing primarily with right handed soldiers? If so, were Philip and Alexander essentially using the same principle developed years later in American football--that of the elite edge pass rusher who comes off the right side of the defense in an attempt to hit the quarterback (again, typically right-handed) in his unprotected backside?

If so, how else did handedness play into ancient battle tactics? Did anybody ever put a battalion of left-handed soldiers on the left side to try to counter these flanking maneuvers?

If you say it a few times it sounds like such an alien word. As if no other words in English have that same root. Newt is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, but that must be unrelated.

Basically, why popcorn? Why not something else? And what made people stray away from the drive-in theaters to indoor ones we have today?

[deleted]

Example: country A is on Tuesday, and country B is on Wednesday? If so, how did this get resolved?

I guess I'm mainly referring to pre-war, but stuff during the war is absolutely fine too.

[deleted]

I don't have a specific period in time I'm asking about, just generally when swords were one of the primary weapons. In movies and shows there is occasionally mention of good steel. How major of a difference would that make? Would quality steel swords cut through weaker steel swords? Were any battles significantly influenced by the quality of steel of one of the sides?